Three-dimensional master equation simulations of charge-carrier transport and recombination in organic semiconductor materials and devices

ABSTRACT

Three-dimensional master equation modeling for disordered semiconductor devices is provided. Charge transport is modeled as incoherent hopping between localized molecular states, and recombination is modeled as a nearest-neighbor process where an electron at a first location and a hole at a second location can recombine at either the first location or the second location. Here the first and second locations are any pair of nearest neighbor locations. We have found that this nearest neighbor recombination model performs substantially better than the conventional local recombination model where an electron and a hole must be at the same location to recombine. The recombination rate is modeled as a product of a prefactor γ, hopping rates and state occupancies. Importantly, we have found that sufficient simulation accuracy can be obtained by taking γ to be given by an empirically derived analytic expression.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to simulation of semiconductor devices

BACKGROUND

Organic semiconductors are used in various types of electronic andopto-electronic devices, such as organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs),organic photovoltaic (OM devices and organic transistors. The materialsused are often structurally disordered (amorphous). The electricalconductivity is a result of “hopping” of the electrical charges betweenthe molecules. Due to the disorder, the energy of the charges in themolecules varies quite randomly, and the distribution of “hopping-rates”between each pair of molecules is quite wide. As a result, the currentdensity is not uniform, but filamentary. And if there are charges withopposite polarities (+ and −), as in OLEDs, the molecules at which theyrecombine (followed by light emission) after a mutual attraction processare not uniformly distributed.

The “gold standard” for predictively describing these complex processesis three-dimensional kinetic Monte Carlo (3D-KMC) simulation. Within3D-KMC simulations, the actual positions of all charges are followed intime, taking the molecular energies, electric field and temperature intoaccount. A disadvantage of this approach is the long simulation time.For OLEDs, obtaining a statistically correct result is at low voltagestoo computer-time consuming. A commonly used alternative approach,one-dimensional drift-diffusion (1D-DD) simulation, is much faster.However, such simulations neglect the actual 3D-randomness of thematerial, and only yield a spatially uniform current density.Accordingly, it would be an advance in the art to provide improvedsimulation of disordered semiconductor devices.

SUMMARY

This work provides improved charge transport modeling of disorderedsemiconductor devices. The general modeling framework employed is 3Dmaster equation modeling. More specifically, charge transport is modeledas incoherent hopping between localized molecular states, andrecombination is modeled as a nearest-neighbor process where an electronat a first location and a hole at a second location can recombine ateither the first location or the second location. Here the first andsecond locations are any pair of nearest neighbor locations. We havefound that this nearest, neighbor recombination model performssubstantially better than the conventional local recombination modelwhere an electron and a hole must be at the same location to recombine.The recombination rate is modeled as a product of a prefactor γ, hoppingrates and state occupancies. Importantly, we have found that sufficientsimulation accuracy can be obtained by taking γ to be given by anempirically derived analytic expression.

For the specific conditions and assumptions considered in detail below,the recombination rate prefactor is given by

$\gamma \cong {0.024\frac{e^{2}}{ɛ_{r}ɛ_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{{\exp\left\lbrack {{- 0.154}\left( \frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T} \right)^{2}} \right\rbrack}.}}$It is expected that similar forms for the recombination rate prefactorcan also be derived in other circumstances.

The main advantage of a recombination rate prefactor expressed in such asimple form is that it is independent of local conditions in the device,such as carrier concentrations. This simplicity greatly reduces run timecompared to a situation where local variations in γ would have to beaccounted for. As shown in detail below, this result for γ is surprisingand unexpected, because many contributions to γ have a significantdependence on carrier concentrations (i.e., the curves on FIG. 12 ,parts (a)-(d)). However, the concentration dependence of the net resultof FIG. 12 part (e) is much less, because the various concentrationdependences mostly cancel each other out.

An exemplary embodiment of the invention is a computer implementedmethod of performing transport simulation of a disordered semiconductordevice. The basic steps of the method are receiving an inputspecification of composition and geometry of the disorderedsemiconductor device, performing a three-dimensional master equationsimulation of electron and hole transport and recombination based on theinput specification, and providing simulated transport results of thedisordered semiconductor device as an output. As indicated above, thethree-dimensional master equation simulation has the features of: 1)charge transport is modeled as incoherent hopping between localizedmolecular states; 2) recombination is modeled as a nearest-neighborprocess where an electron at a first location and a hole at a secondlocation can recombine at either the first location or the secondlocation (here the first location and the second location are any twonearest neighbors in a set of the localized molecular states), 3) therate of the recombination is modeled as a product, of a prefactor γ,hopping rates and state occupancies, and 4) the prefactor γ is given byan empirically derived analytic expression.

Significant advantages are provided. The method enables carrying outsimulations under conditions (e.g., low voltage) for which no KMCsimulations are possible, and/or with much less simulation time. Theapproach is versatile, with no significant, limitations on the devicegeometries that can be modeled. It can be easily applied for varioustechnical uses such as in processes for stack development in any type ofdevice structure. Relevant included physics includes charge transportand light, generation and the simulation domain ranges from nanometersto micrometers. The main technical effect provided by this work isaccurate simulation results in disordered semiconductor devices withsignificantly less simulation time than would be required byconventional simulation approaches. For example, the present approachis, at low voltages, orders of magnitude faster than 3D-KMC simulations,and still incorporates to a good degree of accuracy the effects of themolecular randomness on the non-uniform current density andrecombination rate.

The present approach has numerous applications. Any kind of disorderedsemiconductor device can be simulated, including but not limited to:Organic Light-emitting Diodes (OLEDs), thin film organic solar cells,organic semiconducting multilayer systems and light emitting fieldeffect transistors. Further applications includes displays, lighting,photodetectors and photovoltaic energy conversion. Some specificexamples include: design of solar cells with enhanced light-to-powerconversion and of OLEDs with enhanced light emission, charge transportmodeling in organic semiconductor devices—from molecular to the devicelevel, charge transport modeling in various organic and hybrid solarcells, and modeling of planar and bulk heterojunction and organic solarcells. Simulations as provided herein can be useful in the layer stackdevelopment environment such as in a factory manufacturing OLEDs orsolar cells, where emission, current densities, recombination zonethicknesses etc. can be determined very quickly and efficiently with theaid of the model.

As indicated above, the input specification is of the geometry andcomposition of the disordered device(s) to be modeled. Here model inputparameters such as the mean energy and energy width of the density ofstates are how composition enters the model. Before performing asimulation, parameter values are included or input in themodel/simulation; this defines the problem that is to be solved in thegeometry of a device. The input steps for the simulation of the modelinclude input parameters for performing the calculations, define thesystem, the materials, layer thicknesses, and are used to instruct thatthe simulation is performed for a selected voltage and/or temperature orfor multiple combinations of temperature and voltages. Other deviceparameters can also be varied in such simulations, such as layerthicknesses.

Also as indicated above, the output is simulated transport results. Thisoutput, can take many forms. For example, the output of the simulationcan provide input for use in the process of OLED or solar cell stackdevelopment. This facilitates and accelerates processes for developingOLEDs. In another example, the results of the simulation can provideinput to assess and permit control of, for example, charge injection,and transport and recombination processes in display technologies suchas OLEDs, in addition to advanced optical and electricalcharacterization techniques and experimental validation. Using theresults of the simulations, the technical personal is able to decidebefore conducting experiments which combination of layers, thickness oflayers, and/or the type of materials are best used to design a layerstack for disordered semiconductor devices, and also how to interpretexperiments already conducted in terms of parameter values describingprocesses or materials. The specific output of the simulations caninclude the current density, position-dependent current density, thelocal charge carrier density (i.e., electron and/or holeconcentrations), and (for bipolar devices such as OLEDs) the localrecombination rate. Other device characteristics that can be simulatedare light emission(voltage) and light emission(current density) forlight emitting devices, and voltage(absorbed light) and currentdensity(absorbed light) for light absorbing devices like solar cells andphotodetectors. Here the notation A(B) is a shorthand for “A as afunction of B”. The data generated by the calculations of the system canbe placed in files to subsequently manipulate the data for displaying toa user the optimal device geometry.

Practice of the invention does not depend critically on how it isimplemented. In all cases, simulation methods are computer implemented,but the details of that computer implementation don't matter. Somenon-limiting examples follow. A software product that providessemiconductor device modeling as described herein is one suchimplementation. The simulation model can be implemented, for example, asembedded software in a device that can run on e.g., a microcontrollerwith memory, or it can be more complex such as software running withelectronic components, e.g. a personal computer or a computer cluster.Another implementation is as a non-transitory computer readable medium,the medium readable by a processing circuit or general purpose computerand storing instructions run by the processing circuit or generalpurpose computer for performing methods as described herein.Alternatively the software comprising code for applying a simulationmodel as described herein can be downloadable via a network and loadedinto memory of a computer used to perform the simulation. Anotherimplementation is as a system or apparatus having at least one processorand at least one memory device connected to the processor configured toreceive and perform methods as described herein.

A non-limiting example of a structure that can be simulated according tothe present approach is an OLED structure having a metal cathode, anelectron transport layer (ETL), an emissive layer (EML), a holetransport layer (HTL), an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer and a glasssubstrate. In such a layer structure light emission occurs predominantlyfrom the EML. FIG. 3A shows an example of such a structure. In theselayers, only electrons flow in the electron transport layer, and onlyholes flow in the hole transport layer, whereas the recombination andradiative decay occurs almost entirely in the emissive layer. This isshown in FIG. 4 . By selecting the appropriate thicknesses of the layersit is possible to determine precisely where recombination occurs and todetermine, for example, the thickness of the recombination zone and thecurrent density. The methods and models described herein can be usedadvantageously in complex stack arrangements and devices to predictquickly and precisely properties such as the efficiency of the chargerecombination, emissions and current densities. For example, layerthicknesses of the ETL, EML and HTL can be automatically determined tomaximize light output by simulating as described above for various layerthicknesses and picking the design that works best.

More generally, one can consider a partial input specification ofcomposition and geometry of the device to be designed. Simulations asabove can be automatically done for several cases, where each case isdefined by selecting values as needed for device parameters to completethe input specification. Typically a simulation space is defined byselecting the parameters to be varied in the design process, and thecorresponding ranges over which they can vary. E.g., EML thickness in arange of 20 nm to 100 nm could be a first such parameter, ETL thicknessin a range from 5 nm to 30 nm could be a second such parameter and WITthickness in a range from 5 nm to 30 nm could be a third such parameter.The cases are determined by systematically exploring this simulationspace and providing the resulting optimized device configuration as anoutput. In this example, the result would be optimized ETL, EML, HTLthicknesses as determined by simulations as described above. Theoptimization to be used depends on the kind of device being designed.E.g., for a light emitting diode, light emission at the device'sintended operating point could be maximized. For a solar cell,parameters such as open circuit voltage, short circuit current and/orfill factor can be maximized.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A-B show exemplary simulation times for several simulationapproaches vs. applied voltage.

FIG. 2 shows dependence of part of the recombination rate prefactor onvarious parameters.

FIG. 3A show a device configuration as used in simulations.

FIG. 3B shows simulation results for the configuration of FIG. 3A.

FIG. 4 shows more detailed simulation results for the configuration ofFIG. 3A.

FIG. 5 shows site dependent simulation results for the configuration ofFIG. 3A.

FIG. 6 shows location dependent simulation results for the configurationof FIG. 3A.

FIG. 7 is a comparison between local and non-local modeling ofrecombination.

FIG. 8 shows dependence of simulated J-V curves on disorder energy.

FIG. 9 show dependence of simulated J-V curves on temperature.

FIG. 10 shows mobility enhancement vs. wave function decay length.

FIG. 11 shows the effect of the disorder parameter on f_(MMA) as definedin the text.

FIG. 12 shows the dependence of various components of the recombinationrate prefactor on the disorder parameter.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

I) Introduction

In the past decades, tremendous progress has occurred in the field ofdisordered organic semiconductors. For example, organic light-emittingdiodes (OLEDs), composed of layers of amorphous organic thin film, havealready entered the display and lighting markets. In order to understandthe physics and speed up further device development, it is crucial tomake use of device modeling techniques which can both describe theessential physics and be computationally efficient.

For unipolar devices, various methods have been applied to disorderedorganic semiconductor devices, including one-dimensional (1D)drift-diffusion (1D-DD) simulations, three-dimensional Kinetic MonteCarlo (3D-KMC) simulations, one-dimensional master equation (1D-ME)simulations, and three-dimensional master-equation (3D-ME) simulations.1D-DD modeling is widely used for inorganic semiconductor devices. Ithas also been intensively used to model organic semiconductor devices,because the method is relatively simple and fast. However, the methodhas various limitations. For example, it assumes the system to be acontinuous medium without explicitly including the details at themolecular level. These details are only implicitly included to a certainextent by making use of parameterized mobility functions that depend onthe temperature T, charge carrier concentration c, and electric field F.The analytical expressions of the mobility function used are obtainedfrom advanced 3D modeling methods. Limitations of this approach includethe proper treatment of charge carrier relaxation effects and thetreatment of molecularly-scale mixed materials such as used in theemissive host-guest layers in OLEDs.

The limitations of 1D-DD modeling can be overcome by 3D-KMC modeling,first proposed by Bässler. Assuming incoherent hopping of chargecarriers between localized molecular states, 3D-KMC modeling provides amechanistic way to predict the macroscopic device characteristics frommicroscopic processes at the molecular level. This approach mimics in arealistic manner the functioning of devices by simulating the actualtime and spatially resolved hopping motion of all charge carriers in a3D system. The method is not constrained to specific layer structures,and has, e.g., been applied successfully to predictively simulate theelectroluminescence in complex multilayer white OLEDs. However, due tothe inclusion of all microscopic-scale events, 3D-KMC simulation can becomputationally expensive and is under some conditions infeasible,especially when the device simulation is carried out around or below thebuilt-in voltage V_(bi), where the net device current density is due toonly a very small imbalance of the diffusive motion of charge carriersin the positive and negative field directions. Moreover, in practice,3D-KMC simulations can also not be easily applied to simulate thetransient device response as measured, e.g., using impedancespectroscopy.

Within master equation methods, the time-averaged instead of the actualcharge carrier concentration on the molecular sites is calculated. Incontrast to 1D-DD models, 1D-ME methods include in a natural way thediscreteness of the molecular structure, also at internal interfaces.3D-ME modeling can successfully bridge the gap between 1D-DD and 3D-KMCsimulations. In 3D-ME device simulations, the Coulomb interactionbetween a charge carrier and all other charges in the device is includedin an approximate manner, viz. by using the layer-averaged instead ofthe actual space-charge density. Recently, we demonstrated thepossibility to extend this approach by including the effects of theactual Coulomb interaction between the same type of charge carriers,which plays a role at large carrier concentrations and low electricfields. On the one hand, these 3D-ME simulations of unipolar devicesstill include the effects of the energetically disordered 3D structureand the detailed intermolecular hopping rate functions, if neededdepending on the detailed distribution of relative orientations,distances and transfer integrals between all molecules and based on a“full-quantum” approach that includes the effect of molecularreorganization by taking contributions from all vibrational modes intoaccount. On the other hand, the method is generally computationally lessexpensive than 3D-KMC simulations, in particular below V_(bi). This isshown in FIG. 1A, which gives typical values for the simulation timerequired to obtain for a 100 nm unipolar single-layer device the currentdensity at room temperature with a 1% accuracy, using 1D-DD, 3D-ME and3D-KMC simulations. The lower and upper limits are obtained formaterials with a very weak and strong Gaussian disorder (standarddeviations σ=0.05 and 0.12 eV), respectively. In addition tosteady-state modeling, 3D-ME simulations can also be used to predicttransient properties of devices, such as obtained using dark injectionand impedance spectroscopy measurements. In these cases, 3D-MEsimulations were found to provide a much better agreement withexperimental results than 1D-DD simulations.

Here the 1D drift-diffusion (1D-DD) simulation employs the Bonham andJarvis method, calculated with a Mathematica™ code on a standard desktopcomputer. The 3D master-equation (3D-ME) and 3D kinetic Monte Carlo(3D-KMC) simulations are performed on a computer cluster. The 3D-KMCsimulation software used is Bumblebee, provided by Simbeyond B.V.(simbeyond.com) The 3D-ME simulation method is presented in this work.1D-DD simulation is computationally the most efficient, but it is notmechanistic. At voltages below V_(bi), 3D-ME is the only feasibleapproach capable of 3D predictive modeling. We note that when carryingout the simulations for a device based on a semiconductor with a largerenergy gap, but with identical injection barriers, essentially identicalresults will be obtained when expressed relative to the (larger) valueof V_(bi). We furthermore note that the simulation time shown here isobtained for normal numerical precision, and that for different hardwareconfigurations, coding techniques, and device parameters, the actualsimulation time may vary strongly. The readers are suggested to focusmore on the general trends shown in this figure rather than the exactvalues of the simulation time. In addition to steady-state modeling,3D-ME simulations can also be used to predict transient properties ofdevices, such as obtained using dark injection and impedancespectroscopy measurements. In these cases, 3D-ME simulations were foundto provide a much better agreement with experimental results than 1D-DDsimulations.

So far, the use of 3D-ME modeling has almost exclusively been limited tounipolar devices. Extending unipolar 3D-ME modeling to bipolar transportis not trivial. It is not a priori clear how in 3D-ME simulationscharge-carrier recombination and dissociation can be included in amanner that still allows predictive modelling of the device performance.Zhou et al. have proposed a 3D-ME method within which recombination istreated as a local process, with a rate proportional to the product ofthe electron and hole concentration on the molecule at which therecombination takes place and with a phenomenological rate coefficientthat is treated as a free parameter. As will be shown in this work, suchan approach incorrectly neglects the consequences of the long-rangenature of the Coulomb interaction between electrons and holes. Casalegnoet al. have developed a 3D-ME model that specifically focusses onorganic solar cells. A key challenge is then to properly describe thedissociation probability of charge-transfer (CT) excitons with theelectron and hole residing on adjacent donor and acceptor sites,respectively. Within that model, the rate for this process and for thecompeting processes such as recombination are obtained from the resultsof KMC simulations of these processes for isolated CT excitons. Adisadvantage of this approach is that such initial KMC simulationsshould be repeated when considering system or experimental variations,affecting, e.g., the material structure, energetic disorder, the bindingenergy of excitons localized on each molecule, dielectric constants,temperature, and local electric field.

In this work, we develop a bipolar 3D-ME model for the charge transportand recombination processes in sandwich-type devices based on disorderedorganic semiconductor materials such as OLEDs, with the aim to provide acomputationally efficient method for predictive device modeling at lowvoltages. The model describes recombination as resulting from aninteraction between an electron and a hole residing on nearest-neighborsites, with a rate of the final recombination step that includes theeffects of the percolative nature of the long-distance electron and holetransport towards each other. Without loss of computational efficiency,recombination is thus described effectively as a non-local process. Weshow how the effective rate coefficient can be obtained by comparing theresults of KMC simulations with the results of a simple average-mediumapproach within which a mean-field approximation is used, anddemonstrate the approach for the case of materials with a Gaussiandensity of states. The electron-hole recombination process is thussimulated without free parameters. Within the version of the modeldescribed in this work, exciton formation is assumed to be followed byimmediate radiative decay. However, the model is expected to provide abasis for efficient full 3D-ME device models that also include excitontransfer and exciton loss processes. We find that the use of the 3D-MEmethod developed in this work enables efficient simulations at voltagesbelow V_(bi). FIG. 1B gives the simulation time for a single-layerbipolar device with V_(bi)=1.2 V and shows a comparison with the timerequired for KMC simulations for the same device. We note that the sameoverall conclusions concerning the simulation time also hold for deviceswith larger values of V_(bi).

The structure of this description is as follows. In Sec. II, the bipolar3D-ME model is formulated by describing the simulation approach and themethod for deriving the recombination rate used in the model. In Sec.III, we apply the model to single-layer and realistic three-layerdevices. The current density-voltage J(V) characteristics, carrierconcentration profile and recombination profile are compared with theresults of 3D-KMC simulations, as well as the detailed site-resolvedcharge-carrier concentrations and recombination rates. Next, we comparethe “local” versus “nearest neighbor” descriptions of recombination.Finally, we discuss, based on the simulations, the so-called idealityfactor of bipolar devices, obtained from the simulated J(V) curves belowV_(bi). In the literature, measurements of the ideality factor have beenused to deduce information about the nature of the recombinationprocess. Sec. IV contains a brief summary and an outlook. Sec. V issupplementary information providing further details on the derivation ofthis approach.

II) The Bipolar 3D Master-Equation Model

A. Simulation Approach

In this section, the bipolar 3D-ME model is formulated. As in unipolar3D-ME models for the charge transport in disordered organicsemiconductors, we assume that the charge carriers occupy localizedmolecular states and that the charge transport is due to incoherenthopping between these states. The disordered organic semiconductor isdescribed as a cubic lattice with a lattice constant α (typically α˜1nm), representing the actual molecular sites. All quantities referringto holes or electrons are denoted by superscripts h and e, respectively.The density of states (DOS) is assumed to be given by a Gaussiandistribution with a width σ:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mathcal{g}}(E)} = {\frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\pi\sigma}}}{{\exp\left( {- \frac{E^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}} \right)}.}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$

The charge carrier hopping rate between neighboring sites, v_(ij), isdescribed by the Miller-Abrahams (MA) formula:

$\begin{matrix}{v_{ij}^{h{(e)}} = {v_{1} \times \left\{ \begin{matrix}e^{{{- \Delta}\;{E_{ij}^{h{(e)}}/{({k_{B}T})}}},} & {{{\Delta\; E_{ij}^{h{(e)}}} > 0},} \\{1,} & {{\Delta\; E_{ij}^{h{(e)}}} \leqslant 0.}\end{matrix} \right.}} & (2)\end{matrix}$Here v₁ is the hopping attempt rate to a first nearest neighbour (at adistance a), k_(B) is the Boltzmann constant, ΔE_(ij) is the energydifference between sites j and i, and T is the temperature. We note thatrecent theoretical work has indicated that for amorphous organicsemiconductors the MA-formula provides often a quite accuratedescription of vibrational-mode effects on the hopping rate, and that adescription of the charge transport as obtained using MA-theory is oftenmore accurate than a description obtained using the semiclassical Marcustheory. For simplicity, we assume in this work that the molecular wavefunctions decay rapidly in space so that the charge carriers can onlyhop between nearest neighbor sites. The hopping rates are deduced usingthe self-consistently calculated site energy differences ΔE_(ij) thatinclude the intrinsic energy difference due to Gaussian disorder and theelectrostatic potential difference between sites i and j, as obtained bysolving the 1D-Poisson equation. In this approach, the Coulombinteraction with the space charge, averaged over each molecular layer,is thus taken into account, but the three-dimensional character of theactual Coulomb interaction between a charge and all other individualcharges is neglected. When providing a comparison with the results fromKMC simulations, we focus on systems within which Coulomb-correlationeffects between carriers of the same polarity are very weak. The effectof the Coulomb attraction between carriers of opposite polarity, leadingto recombination, is described in a manner as discussed below.

The time evolution of the hole and electron occupation probability(concentration) on site i, c_(i), is determined by the hopping of holesor electrons from all neighboring sites j toward site i and vice versa(as in unipolar models), minus a contribution due to exciton formation:

$\begin{matrix}{{\frac{{dc}_{i}^{h}}{dt} = {\sum\limits_{j}\begin{bmatrix}{{v_{ji}^{h}{c_{j}^{h}\left( {1 - c_{i}^{h}} \right)}} - {v_{ij}^{h}{c_{i}^{h}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{h}} \right)}}} \\{{- {\gamma\left( {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{e} + {\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{h}} \right)}}\left( {{c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} - {c_{i\; 0}^{h}c_{j\; 0}^{e}}} \right)}\end{bmatrix}}},} & \left( {3a} \right) \\{\frac{{dc}_{i}^{e}}{dt} = {\sum\limits_{j}{\begin{bmatrix}{{v_{ji}^{e}{c_{j}^{e}\left( {1 - c_{i}^{e}} \right)}} - {v_{ij}^{e}{c_{i}^{e}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{e}} \right)}}} \\{{- {\gamma\left( {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{h} + {\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{e}} \right)}}\left( {{c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}} - {c_{i\; 0}^{e}c_{j\; 0}^{h}}} \right)}\end{bmatrix}.}}} & \left( {3b} \right)\end{matrix}$The coefficients γ and the rates {tilde over (v)} are defined andfurther discussed below. The exciton formation process is described as aspecial type of hopping process. When a hole is located on site i and anelectron is located on a neighboring site j, an exciton formation eventcan occur and an exciton may be formed on either site i or j. Thegeneral structure of the exciton formation term is that of the Langevinrecombination rate formula: the formation rate is proportional to theproduct of the electron and hole occupation probabilities on the twosites. At equilibrium, detailed balance is preserved by the thermalgeneration term c_(i0)c_(j0), in which c_(i0) and c_(j0) are theequilibrium hole and electron concentrations at site i and j,respectively. The electron and hole concentrations at equilibrium arecalculated self-consistently by solving the 1D-Poisson equation combinedwith Fermi-Dirac statistics. In this work, we assume that the excitonsformed by electron-hole recombination decay immediately to the groundstate. Excitonic interaction processes (such as exciton diffusion,exciton-exciton annihilation, exciton-polaron quenching, etc.) are thusnot included. We intend to include such interactions in future work.

From the Langevin expression, the exciton formation rate is expected tobe proportional to the sum of the electron and hole mobilities. Theexciton generation term is therefore taken to be proportional to the sumof the local electron and hole hop rates, modified by taking intoaccount that upon exciton formation these rates are affected by theexciton binding energy, E_(exc,b):

$\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{h(e)} = {v_{1} \times \left\{ \begin{matrix}e^{{{- \Delta}{{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}/{({k_{B}T})}}},} & {{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} > 0},} \\{1,} & {{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} \leqslant 0},}\end{matrix} \right.}} & (4)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{with} & \end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} = {{\Delta E_{ij}^{h(e)}} - {E_{{exc},b}.}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$For disordered small-molecule organic semiconductors, E_(exc,b) can beas large as 1 eV, or more. E_(exc,b) depends on the exciton spin(singlet, triplet). For notational simplicity, we have omitted thisdependence in Eq. (5). From the Langevin expression, it follows that theexciton formation rate prefactor γ is proportional to ε_(r)ε₀/e, withε_(r) the dielectric constant, ε₀ vacuum permittivity, and e theelementary charge. The prefactor should furthermore take into accountthat for disordered materials the mobility that would follow within amean-field approach from the average of the hopping rates betweennearest neighbor sites, employed in Eq. (2), is much larger than theactual value. In Sec. IIB, we develop an analytical expression for γ.

The set of coupled equations given by Eq. (2) is solved iteratively.When carrying out device simulations, the image charge effect on carrierinjection is taken into account as reported in the literature. The metalelectrodes are modeled as additional layers of sites, ensuring bothcharge injection and extraction. The total current density isJ=J^(h)+J^(e), with

$\begin{matrix}{{J^{h} = {\frac{e}{L_{x}L_{y}L_{z}} \times {\sum\limits_{i,j}\left\{ {\left\lbrack {{v_{ij}^{h}{c_{i}^{h}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{h}} \right)}} + {\gamma{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{h}\left( {{c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} - {c_{i0}^{h}c_{j0}^{e}}} \right)}}} \right\rbrack\left( {x_{j} - x_{i}} \right)} \right\}}}},} & \left( {6a} \right)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{and} & \end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{J^{e} = {\frac{e}{L_{x}L_{y}L_{z}} \times {\sum\limits_{i,j}\left\{ {\left\lbrack {{v_{ij}^{e}{c_{i}^{e}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{e}} \right)}} + {\gamma{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{e}\left( {{c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}} - {c_{i0}^{e}c_{j0}^{h}}} \right)}}} \right\rbrack\left( {x_{j} - x_{i}} \right)} \right\}}}},} & \left( {6b} \right)\end{matrix}$with L_(x), L_(y), and L_(z) the device dimensions in the electric fielddirection and the two lateral directions, respectively, and(x_(j)−x_(i)) the distance between sites i and j in the direction of theelectric field. In the two lateral directions, periodic boundaryconditions are used. The recombination rate per unit volume on site i isgiven by

$\begin{matrix}{{R_{i} = {\frac{\gamma}{a^{3}}{\sum\limits_{j}\left\lbrack {{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{e}\left( {{c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} - {c_{i0}^{h}c_{j0}^{e}}} \right)} + {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{h}\left( {{c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}} - {c_{i0}^{e}c_{j0}^{h}}} \right)}} \right\rbrack}}},} & (7)\end{matrix}$where the summation is over all nearest neighbor sites.B. Recombination Rate Prefactor γ

In this subsection, we derive a theoretical expression for therecombination rate prefactor γ that enters Eq. (3). Consistent with theresults of KMC simulations, we require that in systems with spatiallyuniform and equal electron and hole concentrations, c^(h)=c^(e)=c, therecombination rate at low electric fields and for disorder energiesσ>0.05 eV is to a good approximation given by the Langevin formula. Forthe cases c^(h)≠c^(e), the theoretical derivation is lessstraightforward. However, it will be shown in Sec. III that forrealistic device simulations, in which c^(h)≠c^(e) is common, thederived γ in this section also works rather well. The Langevin formulacan be written as:

$\begin{matrix}{{R_{KMC} = {\frac{e}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}}2{\mu_{bip}(c)}\frac{c^{2}}{a^{6}}}},} & (8)\end{matrix}$where μ_(bip)(c)≡r_(μ)(c)μ(c) is the so-called “bipolar” mobility. Theanalysis thus takes into account that in bipolar systems theelectron-hole Coulomb interaction leads to mobilities that are slightlyenhanced, by a factor r_(μ), as compared to the unipolar values. Whenexpressing the effective (site-occupation-weighted) difference betweenthe rates of the final recombination step with and without the effectsof the exciton binding energy in terms of a factor r_(v), a comparisionwith Eq. (8) yields

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {\frac{e}{a^{3}\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}}r_{\mu}r_{\nu}{\frac{2\mu c^{2}}{\left\langle {\sum\limits_{j}\left( {{v_{ji}^{e}c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} + {v_{ji}^{h}c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}}} \right)} \right\rangle_{i}}.}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$For notational simplicity, the dependence of γ, μ, r_(μ) and r_(v) on cis not explictly shown.

In the absence of energetic disorder, the occupation probabilities areat all sites equal to c, and the unipolar mobility is (for small fields)given by μ=a²v₁e/(k_(B)T). Furthermore, r_(v)=1, because all final hopsleading to recombination are barrierless, even when E_(exc,b)=0. FromEq. (9), the recombination prefactor is then

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {\frac{e^{2}}{3\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}r_{\mu}{\left( {{no}{disorder}} \right).}}} & (10)\end{matrix}$For materials with Gaussian disorder, the relationship between theunipolar mobility and the nearest neighbor hop rates is lessstraightforward. The unipolar mobility is from the Extended GaussianDisorder Model (EGDM) given by

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mu(c)} \cong {\frac{a^{2}{ev}_{1}}{\sigma} \times {f\left( {\overset{\hat{}}{\sigma},c} \right)}_{EGDM} \times {\exp\left\lbrack {{- 0.42}{\overset{\hat{}}{\sigma}}^{2}} \right\rbrack}}},} & (11)\end{matrix}$with f({circumflex over (σ)}, c)_(EGDM) the carrier concentrationenhancement of the mobility with respect to the mobility for smallconcentrations, in the independent-particle Boltzmann regime, and with{circumflex over (σ)}≡σ/(k_(B)T). The exponential factor expresses thetemperature dependence of the mobility in the low-concentration limit,and includes the effects of the percolative motion of the chargecarriers in the disordered material. In contrast, the denominator in Eq.(9) does not include the effects of percolation, and thereforeoverestimates the rate with which electron-hole encounter processes willoccur. The mobility that would follow from a such a weighted summationof local hopping rates, termed the “mean medium approximation” (MMA) isfor the case of nearest-neigbour hopping in a Gaussian DOS given by (seeSec. V):

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mu(c)} \cong {\frac{2\beta a^{2}{ev}_{1}}{\sigma} \times {f\left( {\overset{\hat{}}{\sigma},c} \right)}_{MMA} \times {\exp\left\lbrack {{- {0.2}}5{\overset{\hat{}}{\sigma}}^{2}} \right\rbrack}}},} & (12)\end{matrix}$with β=0.562 and f({circumflex over (σ)}, c)_(MMA) a function that inthe limit of strong disorder becomes equal to the charge carrierconcentration enhancement of the mobility with respect, to the mobilityfor small carrier concentrations (see FIGS. 10 and 11 ). For smalldisorder parameters, f({circumflex over (σ)}, c)_(MMA) approaches{circumflex over (σ)}/2β, consistent with the expression for themobility in the disorderless limit, given above. Based on these results,we include the effect of percolation in the expression for therecombination prefactor by generalizing Eq. (10) in the followingmanner:

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {{\frac{e^{2}r_{\mu}r_{v}}{3\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}\frac{\mu_{EGDM}}{\mu_{MMA}}} = {\frac{e^{2}r_{\mu}r_{v}}{6{\beta\varepsilon}_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}\frac{f_{EGDM}}{f_{MMA}}{{\exp\left\lbrack {{- 0.17}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right\rbrack}.}}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$This theoretical approach is expected to yield a useful parameterizationscheme describing the disorder, temperature and carrier concentrationdependence of the value of γ that leads to optimal agreement between3D-ME and 3D-KMC results. Based on Eq. (13), we will write

$\begin{matrix}{{\gamma \cong {A_{th}\frac{e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{\exp\left\lbrack {{- B_{th}}{\overset{\hat{}}{\sigma}}^{2}} \right\rbrack}}},} & (14)\end{matrix}$with from the theory developed aboveA_(th)=r_(μ)r_(v)f_(EGDM)/(6βf_(MMA)) and B_(th)≅0.17. Both parametersare dimensionless.

In FIG. 2 , the value of A_(th) as a function of the disorder parameter{circumflex over (σ)} and the carrier concentration c is given (detailsof the evaluation are given in FIG. 12 ). Surprisingly, althoughf_(EGDM), f_(MMA), r_(μ), and r_(v) are all {circumflex over (σ)} and cdependent, their combination A_(th) is only weakly sensitive to{circumflex over (σ)} and c in the range 3≤{circumflex over (σ)}≤5 and10⁻⁶≤c≤10⁻⁴. In FIG. 12 it is shown that both f_(EGDM) and f_(MMA)increase with {circumflex over (σ)} and c, and in the expression of A,they approximately cancel each other. Furthermore, r_(μ) increases with{circumflex over (σ)} and c, while r_(v) decreases with {circumflex over(σ)} and c. Hence, their product in the expression of A also becomesalmost {circumflex over (σ)} and c independent, except for the case ofc=10⁻³. In Sec. III, we show from a comparison of 3D-ME and 3D-KMCsimulation results for a large number of devices with varying materialsparameters and layer thicknesses, studied for a wideapplication-relevant voltage and temperature range, that a satisfactoryagreement is obtained when simply using a constant value A=0.024±0.005,combined with B≅0.154. This finding significantly reduces thecomputational cost in 3D-ME modeling, because instead of updating γ forall molecular sites during each iteration step, it is to a goodapproximation allowed to use a single value for the entire device.

In realistic devices, it is possible that the DOS of the HOMO and LUMOhave different widths, i.e. σ^(e)≠σ^(h). In this case, by benchmarkingthe 3D-ME results with 3D-KMC, we find that using an effectiveσ_(eff)=min(σ^(e), σ^(h)) in Eq. (14) yields a good agreement. We viewthis as a result of the different roles of the two carriers: thecarriers on molecules with the larger σ will be “trapped” and therecombination is most likely due to capture of the more mobile othertype of carrier, on molecules with a smaller σ.

III) 3D Bipolar Device Simulations

In this section, the results of device simulations using the bipolar3D-ME model are compared with the results of 3D-KMC simulation results.We also show simulation results for V<V_(bi), where only the 3D-ME modelcan be used. The simulations were carried out using a constantrecombination prefactor γ, of the form given by Eq. (14), and with theoptimized parameters A=0.024 and B=0.154 as explained in the previoussection.

A. Current Density-Voltage Characteristics and Profiles of the ChargeCarrier Concentration, Recombination Rate, and Electric Field

As an example, we study 100 nm thick devices, with the layer structureshown in FIG. 3A. We assume a lattice constant a=1 nm, hopping attemptfrequency v₁=3.3×10¹⁰ s⁻¹, relative dielectric constant ε_(r)=3, andtemperature T=290 K. The HOMO and LUMO energies are assumed to beuncorrelated. We choose a relatively large injection barrier (0.4 eV) inorder to suppress the unipolar Coulomb correlation effect. This effectcan in principle be included, but this is outside the scope of thiswork. For simplicity we take σ^(e)=σ^(h)=σ. The simulations typicallyinclude 10 disorder configurations to obtain sufficient statistics. Thelateral dimensions of the devices simulated are typically 50 nm×50 nm.In realistic devices (e.g. OLEDs), a three-layer structure is commonlyused, consisting of a hole transport layer (HTL), an emissive layer(EML), and an electron transport layer (ETL). In FIG. 3A, the schematicband diagram for a simple symmetric three-layer HTL(20 nm)/EML(60nm)/ETL(20 nm) device is shown. In FIG. 3B, the simulated currentdensity-voltage characteristics of this device for different energeticdisorder σ is plotted. The agreement between the ME (curves) and KMC(symbols) results is very good for low and moderate voltages. Deviationsare observed for large voltages at large disorder.

In FIG. 4 , the electron and hole concentration profile, therecombination profile, and the electric field profile are shown for thedevice shown in FIG. 3A with σ=0.10 eV. The agreement between the 3D-ME(curves) and 3D-KMC (symbols) simulations is very good at low voltages(V=2 V and 4 V). At at large voltages (V=10 V), the 3D-ME simulations donot reproduce the 3D-KMC results well. We suspect that this is becauseour model for recombination (Eqs. (8)-(14)) is based on the low electricfield regime, which cannot be directly applied to high electric fields(i.e. eVa/L·σ). Such high electric fields add complexity to therecombination process. The 3D-ME model in this case underestimates thelocal recombination rate, leading to an overestimation of the carrierconcentration and current density. This is consistent with the currentdensity-voltage simulation results in FIG. 3 . We note that, at theselarge voltages 3D-KMC simulations are computationally as efficient oreven more efficient than 3D-ME simulations. Therefore, we have notextended the 3D-ME model to include high-field cases.

To further validate the 3D bipolar ME model, we have compared thecurrent density-voltage characteristics, charge carrier profile, andrecombination profile of 3D-ME and 3D-KMC simulations for 32 additionaldevices. The following device parameters are varied: width of theenergetic disorder (σ=0.05, 0.075, 0.10, or 0.12 eV), disorder energiesfor HOMO and LUMO (σ^(e)≠σ^(h), for the combination of 0.05/0.075 eV,0.05/0.10 eV, or 0.075/0.10 eV), disorder energies σ in different layers(HTL/EML/ETL σ=0.05/0.10/0.05 eV or 0.10/0.05/0.10 eV), hopping attemptfrequency of electrons and holes (v₁ ^(e)≠v₁ ^(h), e.g., v₁ ^(h)=10v₁^(e) in HTL and EML), hopping attempt frequency v₁ in different layers(v₁ ^(e) and v₁ ^(h) in HTL and ETL are 10, 100, or 1000 times largerthan those in EML), device thicknesses or layer thicknesses L(HTL/EML/ETL thickness=10/30/10 nm, 5/90/5 nm, 10/80/10 nm, 30/40/30 nm,or 40/20/40 nm), temperature (T=250, 320, or 387 K), injection barrier(Φ=0.2, 0.3, 0.5, or 0.6 eV), and dielectric constant (ε_(r)=4 or 6). Atlow voltages (V≤4 V), the 3D-ME simulation results agree in most caseswell with the results from 3D-KMC simulations. There exist a few caseswhere deviations in the carrier concentration profiles are observed.However, in these cases the agreement in the current density-voltagecharacteristics and the recombination profile (which are more importantfor device characteristics) is still good. In addition to modelvalidation, these simulation data sets also provide physical insightinto device optimization. For example, a possible approach to obtain auniform emission profile in the EML is to set the disorder energy σ inthe EML to be larger than those in ETL and HTL.

B. Site-Resolved Charge-Carrier Concentrations and Recombination Rates

In Sec. IIIA, the 3D-ME and 3D-KMC charge carrier and recombinationprofiles were compared in a layer-averaged way. However, due to theenergetic disorder, the charge carrier occupation probability and therecombination rate associated with each molecular site are highlyinhomogeneous. A more strict test of the 3D-ME model is to compare thesite-resolved concentration and recombination rates with the 3D-KMCresults. In FIG. 5 parts (a) through (e), such a comparison is shown forthe device in FIG. 3A with σ=0.10 eV, at V=3 V. The disorderconfigurations are taken to be the same for the ME and KMC simulations.In the figure, the molecular sites are labeled with a site number bydescending order of carrier concentration (or recombination rate), ascalculated from the 3D-ME simulations. The same site numbers areassigned to the KMC simulation results. The KMC-calculated andME-calculated site-resolved concentrations or rates are both shown as afunction of the site number. To obtain better statistics, the resultsare binned for every 100 sites.

The results in FIG. 5 parts (a) through (e) show that the site-resolvedelectron and hole concentrations calculated using the 3D-ME simulationscan very well reproduce those calculated from the 3D-KMC simulations.The site-resolved recombination rates as obtained from the 3D-ME and3D-KMC simulations are excellently correlated. However, for sites atwhich the recombination rates from 3D-KMC simulations is relativelylarge, the 3D-ME simulations overestimate the recombination rate by afactor 2-3. As the recombination rate is largest in thin zones near theEML/HTL and EML/ETL interfaces, we view this overestimation as aconsequence of neglecting the carrier concentration gradients in theseregions on a 2-5 nm scale. The recombination rate on sites at which inthe 3D-KMC simulation recombinations seldomly take place isunderestimated by the 3D-ME simulations.

To better visualize the site-resolved results, we show in FIG. 6 crosssections of the device in FIG. 3A and plot the 2D contour profile ofcarrier concentration and recombination rate. The “hot spots” correspondto sites with high carrier concentrations or recombination rates.Consistent with FIG. 5 , while the site-resolved carrier concentrationin KMC is well-reproduced by ME, the site-resolved recombination rateshows some differences. The results of FIG. 6 are from the layer at x=21nm (the layer in the EML that is adjacent to the EML/HTL interface). Theleft panels are 3D-KMC results and the right panels are 3D-ME results. Acolor version of FIG. 6 can be found in Liu et al., (“Three-DimensionalModeling of Bipolar Charge-Carrier Transport and Recombination inDisordered Organic Semiconductor Devices at Low Voltages”, Phys. Rev.Applied, vol. 10, 2018, 054007).

C. “Local” Versus “Nearest-Neighbor” Descriptions of Recombination

In Eq. (4), recombination has been described as a “nearest-neighbor”process, instead of a “local” process with a rate at site i proportionalto c_(i) ^(h)c_(i) ^(e). In order to compare the effect of these twoalternative approaches, we compare the results of 3D-ME and 3D-KMCsimulations for a 100 nm single-layer device with a symmetric energylevel structure as shown in the inset of FIG. 7 for the case ofpositive, negative and vanishing correlation between the HOMO and LUMOenergies (see the top part of FIG. 7 ). As was shown in the literature,both types of disorder can be found in actual materials: electrostaticfields give rise to a positive correlation and configurational disordercan give rise to negative correlation. A robust model should be validfor all cases. FIG. 7 shows that KMC simulations reveal that the type ofcorrelation has no significant effect on the device current density.This is because the main driving force for the last step ofrecombination is the exciton binding energy, which is much larger thanthe energetic disorder σ. This result is well reproduced by the“percolation-corrected nearest-neighbor” ME model proposed in this work(full curves in the figure). In contrast, using a “local” ME model wouldgive rise to strongly deviating results (dashed curves).

D. Current-Voltage Characteristics Below the Built-In Voltage

To further investigate the validity of the bipolar 3D-ME simulationmodel, we examine the current density-voltage characteristics around andbelow the built-in voltage V_(bi). In this regime, the current densityis dominated by diffusion rather than drift. The current increasesexponentially with voltage. KMC simulations are then not realisticallyapplicable due to an impractically long simulation time (FIGS. 1A-B). Inthis subsection, we study the dependence of the ideality factor η, whichis defined as η=[k_(B)T/e·d(ln J)/dV]⁻¹, on the disorder energy, voltageand temperature. The 3D-ME simulation results are shown in FIGS. 8 and 9.

The ideality factor, obtained from the slope of the currentdensity-voltage characteristics, enters the generalized Einsteinrelation between the diffusivity D and the mobility μ, D=ημk_(B)T/e. Fornondegenerate inorganic semiconductors, η=1. For disordered organicsemiconductors, with a Gaussian DOS, η>1 when the DOS is filled abovethe critical concentration beyond which the system is not anymore in theindependent-particle (Boltzmann) regime. The ideality factor η is afunction of the disorder parameter {circumflex over (σ)} and the carrierconcentration c. In a device, the carrier concentration profile is notuniform. That implies that the ideality factor as deduced fromexperiments can depend on the voltage at which it has been determined,as will be shown below.

It is not straightforward to directly compare the simulated idealityfactor with the experimentally measured ideality factor in literature.The difference might come from three reasons. (a) In our simulations weconsider a Gaussian DOS, but in reality there might be a superimposedexponential trap DOS, which is not included in our model. Theexponential trap DOS will significantly modify the ideality factor. (b)As the ideality factor is extracted from the slope of the currentdensity-voltage characteristics, the choice of voltage point affects theextracted ideality factor (see above). (c) In reality, there is usuallya leakage current in the low voltage regime which is not included in thesimulation. The leakage current is expected to influence the idealityfactor. Hence, one needs to be careful regarding the physicalinterpretation of the ideality factor.

In FIG. 8 , the disorder energy σ is varied while the temperature T isfixed at 290 K. FIG. 8 part (a) shows that for large σ and low voltages,the current density is larger than that for the small σ case. This is,at least in part, due to the easier injection from the electrodes into awider DOS. FIG. 8 part (I)) shows that the ideality factor is indeedvoltage dependent. For small σ and low voltages, the ideality factorapproaches unity. In the voltage range studied, it increases with σ.This effect can be explained from the increasing charge carrierconcentration, at any point in the device, with increasing σ, combinedwith the increase with σ of the diffusion coefficient enhancement factorat any given carrier concentration.

In FIG. 9 , the disorder energy σ is fixed at 0.10 eV while thetemperature T is varied. We observe that the ideality factor is almostindependent of temperature, which agrees with experimental results. Wealso find that for a series of symmetric 100 nm devices with varying EMLlayer thicknesses the ideality factor, evaluated at a fixed low voltage,is not significantly dependent on the voltage. We remark that accuratecalculation of the ideality factor requires high precision in thecurrent density-voltage calculation. To run the 3D-ME simulations with asufficiently high precision for a current density as low as 10⁻⁶ A/m²,the simulation time is significantly larger than those shown in FIGS.1A-B.

IV) Conclusions and Outlook

In this work, we have presented a bipolar 3D-ME simulation model thatcan be used to predictively model electron-hole recombination indisordered organic semiconductor devices at low voltages. For voltagesclose to or smaller than the built-in voltage V_(bi), the simulationmethod is numerically much more efficient than 3D-KMC simulations. Themodel has been validated by comparing the simulation results for a widerange of parameters with those obtained from 3D-KMC simulations. Fromthe development of a theoretical expression for the recombinationprefactor γ (Eq. (13)), we have gained deepened understanding of thefactors that determine the recombination rate in disordered organicsemiconductors.

The bipolar 3D-ME model presented in this work opens up a route towardsstrongly accelerated OLED device simulations. It can be further extendedand improved in various ways. In this work, the simulations are limitedto organic semiconductors with a Gaussian DOS. It is important in futureto extend the model beyond a Gaussian DOS, because in practice (a) theemissive layers are composed of a host-guest system, and (b) in somematerials an exponential DOS of traps is present. We envisage that themethodology for including recombination, developed in Section II.B forthe case of a Gaussian DOS and based on a comparison of percolation andmean-field based transport theories, can be extended to other types ofthe density of states. No calibration using KMC simulations would thenbe needed. It is also important to extend the model to includeexcitonics (e.g. exciton diffusion, recombination, annihilation,quenching, intersystem crossing, and etc.), which is crucial for OLEDsimulations. However, while in 3D-KMC simulations these processes couldbe added straightforwardly, in 3D-ME simulations the inclusion of theseprocesses requires deeper insight into the device physics.

V) Supplemental Information—Charge-Carrier Recombination in the 3D-MESimulation Model

In this section, we present a full theoretical description ofcharge-carrier recombination in the 3D-ME simulation model, including adetailed derivation and numerical evaluation of the recombinationprefactor γ that enters Eq. (3) in the main text.

A. Theoretical Expression for the Recombination Prefactor γ

In the bipolar 3D-ME model, the time-dependence of the hole and electronconcentrations at a site i, c_(i) ^(h) and c_(i) ^(e), respectively, isdescribed as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{{\frac{dc_{i}^{h}}{dt} = {\sum\limits_{j}\left\lbrack {{v_{ji}^{h}{c_{j}^{h}\left( {1 - c_{i}^{h}} \right)}} - {v_{ij}^{h}{c_{i}^{h}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{h}} \right)}} - {{\gamma\left( {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{e} + {\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{h}} \right)}\left( {{c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} - {c_{i0}^{h}c_{j0}^{e}}} \right)}} \right\rbrack}},} & ({S1a})\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{dc_{i}^{e}}{dt} = {\sum\limits_{j}\left\lbrack {{v_{ji}^{e}{c_{j}^{e}\left( {1 - c_{i}^{e}} \right)}} - {v_{ij}^{e}{c_{i}^{e}\left( {1 - c_{j}^{e}} \right)}} - {{\gamma\left( {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{h} + {\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{e}} \right)}\left( {{c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}} - {c_{i0}^{e}c_{j0}^{h}}} \right)}} \right\rbrack}},} & ({S1b})\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{v_{ij}^{h(e)} = {v_{1}^{h(e)} \times \left\{ \begin{matrix}{e^{{- \Delta}{E_{ij}^{h(e)}/{({k_{B}T})}}},} & {{{\Delta E_{ij}^{h(e)}} > 0},} \\{1,} & {{{\Delta E_{ij}^{h(e)}} \leqslant 0},}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({S1c})\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ij}^{h(e)} = {v_{1}^{h(e)} \times \left\{ \begin{matrix}{e^{{- \Delta}{{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}/{({k_{B}T})}}},} & {{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} > 0},} \\{1,} & {{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} \leqslant 0},}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({S1d})\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{\Delta{\overset{\sim}{E}}_{ij}^{h(e)}} = {{\Delta E_{ij}^{h(e)}} - {E_{{exc},b}.}}} & ({S1e})\end{matrix}$See also Eqs. (2)-(5) and the definitions of all quantities above. Therecombination rate at site i is a result of electrons hopping from sitej to i (if there is a hole on site i) and holes hopping from site j to i(if there is an electron on site i). These local rates are modified (ingeneral enhanced) by the effect of the exciton binding energy. We notethat the net effect of this enhancement on the recombination rate isonly moderate, because the local and neighboring electron and holedensities will be reduced when increasing the local rates by increasingthe binding energy, providing (in part) a compensating effect.Neglecting a small intrinsic (thermal-equilibrium) carrierconcentration, the local recombination rate is from Eq. (7) above givenby

$\begin{matrix}{{R_{i} = {\frac{\gamma}{a^{3}}{\sum\limits_{{sites}j}\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{e}c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} + {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{h}c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}}} \right)}}},} & ({S2})\end{matrix}$where the summation is over all nearest-neighbor (NN) sites. Thisexpression has the general form of the Langevin formula, which for asystem with equal electron and hole concentrations, and a constant andequal electron and hole mobility μ reads

$\begin{matrix}{{R_{Langevin} = {\frac{e}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}}2\mu\frac{c^{2}}{a^{6}}}},} & ({S3})\end{matrix}$ε_(r) is the relative dielectric constant and ε₀ is the vacuumpermittivity. In the absence of energetic disorder, the unipolarmobility (for small fields) on a simple cubic lattice is given by

$\begin{matrix}{{\mu = \frac{a^{2}v_{1}e}{k_{B}T}},} & ({S4})\end{matrix}$so that the Langevin recombination rate is then equal to

$\begin{matrix}{{R_{Langevin} = {\frac{2e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}k_{B}{Ta}^{4}}v_{1}c^{2}}},} & ({S5})\end{matrix}$From a comparison between Eqs. (S2) and (S5), and neglecting the effectof the exciton binding energy on the local hop rates, one would thenexpect that

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {\frac{e^{2}}{3\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}.}} & \left( {S6} \right)\end{matrix}$

For energetically disordered systems, this derivation of γ is forvarious reasons an oversimplification. Firstly, from a Kinetic MonteCarlo (KMC) study by van der Hoist et al. it is known that for the caseof equal electron and hole densities, the recombination rate is given bythe Langevin formula, but modified by a factor r_(μ)(c, {circumflex over(σ)}) (≥1), due to the need to include Coulomb-correlation effects(“bimolecular mobilities”). In part C of this section (FIG. 12 part(a)), we show from KMC simulations how r_(μ) varies with the carrierconcentration and with the reduced disorder parameter {circumflex over(σ)}≡σ/(k_(B)T). Secondly, we have to include in γ a correction fordescribing the recombination rate in Eq. (S2) using a NN hop rate thatis enhanced by including the exciton binding energy. Whereas that isphysically correct when the final exciton-formation step is considered,the mobility of the recombining charges at distances larger than aNN-distance due to hops before the final recombination step is thentaken to be too large. We correct for this error by including in γ afactor r_(v)(c, {circumflex over (σ)}) (≤1) that is equal to the inverseof the average rate enhancement for a system with a uniform carrierconcentration:

$\begin{matrix}{r_{v} = {\frac{\left\langle {\sum\limits_{j}\left( {{v_{ji}^{e}c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} + {v_{ji}^{h}c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}}} \right)} \right\rangle_{i}}{\left\langle {\sum\limits_{j}\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{e}c_{i}^{h}c_{j}^{e}} + {{\overset{\sim}{v}}_{ji}^{h}c_{i}^{e}c_{j}^{h}}} \right)} \right\rangle_{i}}.}} & \left( {S7} \right)\end{matrix}$In part C of this section (FIG. 12 part (b)), we show from KMCsimulations how r_(v) varies with the carrier concentration and with thedisorder parameter. Thirdly, we have to correct γ by properly includingthe percolative nature of the mobility of the recombining chargecarriers. From the Extended Gaussian Disorder Model (EGDM), the unipolarmobility for materials with Gaussian disorder is at small electricfields given by

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mu\left( {\hat{\sigma},c} \right)}_{EGDM} \simeq {\frac{a^{2}{ev}_{1}}{\sigma} \times {f\left( {\hat{\sigma},c} \right)}_{EGDM} \times {\exp\left( {{- 0.42}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right)}}},} & \left( {S8} \right)\end{matrix}$with f({circumflex over (σ)}, c)_(EGDM) the carrier concentrationenhancement of the mobility with respect to the mobility for smallconcentrations, in the independent-particle Boltzmann regime:

$\begin{matrix}{f_{EGDM} \simeq {\frac{1}{c}{{\exp\left( {\frac{\eta}{k_{B}T} + \frac{{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}}{2}} \right)}.}}} & \left( {S9} \right)\end{matrix}$The percolative motion of the charge carriers gives rise to a strongdependence of the mobility on the disorder parameter {circumflex over(σ)}. In contrast, the NN-approach as used in Eq. (S2) neglects thepercolative motion of the recombining charge carriers. The mobility ofthe recombining charge carriers is then overestimated, and expected tobe given by the value obtained from the Mean Medium Approximation (MMA).In part B of this section, we show that the mobility for NN hopping in aGaussian DOS is then

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mu\left( {\hat{\sigma},c} \right)}_{MMA} \simeq {\frac{2\beta a^{2}{ev}_{1}}{\sigma} \times {f\left( {\hat{\sigma},c} \right)}_{MMA} \times {\exp\left( {{- 0.25}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right)}}},} & \left( {S10} \right)\end{matrix}$with β=0.562 and f({circumflex over (σ)}, c)_(MMA) the carrierconcentration enhancement of the mobility with respect to the mobilityfor small concentrations, in the independent-particle Boltzmann regime,given by Eq. (S18) in subsection B. Within the MMA, the disorderparameter dependence of the mobility is thus significantly smaller thanwithin the EGDM.

Combination of these three corrections leads to the following finalexpression for the recombination prefactor γ:

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {\frac{r_{\mu}r_{v}f_{EGDM}}{6\beta f_{MMA}}\frac{e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{{\exp\left( {{- 0.17}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right)}.}}} & \left( {S11} \right)\end{matrix}$B. Unipolar Carrier Transport in the Mean Medium Approximation for aGaussian DOS

As motivated in part A of this section, we derive here an expression forthe mobility within the MMA. Within the MMA, the current density isproportional to the sum of contributions of all possible hops betweenpairs of sites, with a weight that is equal to the product of theresulting displacement in the field direction and the hopping rate. Withthe Miller-Abrahams model for the hopping rate, the MMA on a discretelattice leads to the following expression for the current density J:

$\begin{matrix}{J_{MMA} = {{ev}_{1}a^{3}N_{t}^{2}{\sum\limits_{{sites}k}{z_{k}{\exp\left( {{- 2}{R_{k}/\lambda}} \right)}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{i}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{j}{g\left( E_{i} \right)}{g\left( E_{j} \right)}{f\left( {E_{i},\eta} \right)} \times \left\lbrack {1 - {f\left( {E_{j},\eta} \right)}} \right\rbrack{{\exp\left( {- \frac{E_{j} - E_{i} - {{ez}_{k}F} + {❘{E_{j} - E_{i} - {{ez}_{k}F}}❘}}{2k_{B}T}} \right)}.}}}}}}}}} & \left( {S12} \right)\end{matrix}$Here N_(t) is the molecular site density, R_(k) is the distance betweenthe initial and final sites during one hopping event, z_(k) is thehopping distance along the direction of the electric field F, g(E) isthe density of states (DOS), f is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function,η is the Fermi energy, and the definitions of all other quantities arethe same as those in the main text. In the limit of F→0, the currentdensity becomes

$\begin{matrix}{J_{MMA} = {{ev}_{1}a^{3}N_{t}^{2}{\frac{eF}{k_{B}T}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits_{{sites}k}{z_{k}^{2}{\exp\left( {{- 2}{R_{k}/\lambda}} \right)}}} \right\rbrack} \times}} & \left( {S13} \right)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{i}{\int_{E_{i}}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{j}{g\left( E_{i} \right)}{g\left( E_{j} \right)}{{f\left( {E_{i},\eta} \right)}\left\lbrack {1 - {f\left( {E_{j},\eta} \right)}} \right\rbrack}{\exp\left( {- \frac{E_{j} - E_{i}}{k_{B}T}} \right)}}}}},} & \left( {S14} \right)\end{matrix}$and the charge-carrier mobility becomes

$\begin{matrix}{{{\mu_{MMA} \equiv \frac{J_{MMA}}{neF}} = {{{v_{1}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits_{{sites}k}{z_{k}^{2}{\exp\left( {{- 2}{R_{k}/\lambda}} \right)}}} \right\rbrack}\text{⁠}\frac{e}{k_{B}T} \times \frac{\begin{matrix}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{i}{\int_{E_{i}}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{j}{g\left( E_{i} \right)}{g\left( E_{j} \right)}{{f\left( {E_{i},\eta} \right)}\left\lbrack {1 -} \right.}}}}} \\{\left. {f\left( {E_{j},\eta} \right)} \right\rbrack{\exp\left( {- \frac{E_{j} - E_{i}}{k_{B}T}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{{dEg}(E)}{f\left( {E,\eta} \right)}}}} = {v_{1}a^{2}2{\exp\left( {{- 2}{a/\lambda}} \right)}{f_{BNN}\left( {\lambda/a} \right)}\frac{e}{k_{B}T} \times \frac{\begin{matrix}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{i}{\int_{E_{i}}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{j}{g\left( E_{i} \right)}{g\left( E_{j} \right)}{{f\left( {E_{i},\eta} \right)}\left\lbrack {1 -} \right.}}}}} \\{\left. {f\left( {E_{j},\eta} \right)} \right\rbrack{\exp\left( {- \frac{E_{j} - E_{i}}{k_{B}T}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{{dEg}(E)}{f\left( {E,\eta} \right)}}}}}},} & \left( {S15} \right)\end{matrix}$where the function f_(BNN), shown in FIG. 10 , gives the mobilityenhancement when including beyond-nearest-neighbor hops. The enhancementdepends only on the wave function decay length, expressed in units of a:

$\begin{matrix}{{f_{BNN}\left( {\lambda/a} \right)} \equiv {\frac{\sum\limits_{{sites}k}{\left( \frac{z_{k}}{a} \right)^{2}{\exp\left( {{- 2}{R_{k}/\lambda}} \right)}}}{2{\exp\left( {{- 2}{a/\lambda}} \right)}}.}} & \left( {S16} \right)\end{matrix}$This result is valid for any shape of the DOS.

For the case of a Gaussian DOS with a width (standard deviation) σ, themobility is given by:

$\begin{matrix}{{\mu_{MMA} \equiv {\frac{v_{1}{ea}^{2}}{\sigma}2{\exp\left( {{- 2}{a/\lambda}} \right)} \times \beta \times {\exp\left\lbrack {{- \frac{1}{4}}\left( \frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T} \right)^{2}} \right\rbrack} \times {f_{BNN}\left( {\lambda/a} \right)} \times {f_{MMA}\left( {{{\sigma/k_{B}}T},{\eta/\sigma}} \right)}}},} & \left( {S17} \right)\end{matrix}$with β=0.562 (determined numerically for the limit of a large disorderparameter σ/k_(B)T) and with f_(MMA) a dimensionless function of thedisorder parameter and the Fermi energy η that gives the variation ofthe mobility with increasing carrier concentration:

$\begin{matrix}{{f_{MMA}\left( {\frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T},\frac{\eta}{\sigma}} \right)} \equiv {\frac{\frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T} \times \frac{\begin{matrix}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{i}{\int_{E_{i}}^{+ \infty}{{dE}_{j}{g\left( E_{i} \right)}{g\left( E_{j} \right)}{{f\left( {E_{i},\eta} \right)}\left\lbrack {1 -} \right.}}}}} \\{\left. {f\left( {E_{j},\eta} \right)} \right\rbrack{\exp\left( {- \frac{E_{j} - E_{i}}{k_{B}T}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}{\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty}{{{dEg}(E)}{f\left( {E,\eta} \right)}}}}{\beta \times {\exp\left\lbrack {{- \frac{1}{4}}\left( \frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T} \right)^{2}} \right\rbrack}}.}} & \left( {S18} \right)\end{matrix}$The constant β has been chosen such that f_(MMA) is equal to 1 in thelimit of a very large disorder parameter and a very small chargeconcentration (deep in the Boltzmann regime). FIG. 11 shows f_(MMA) as afunction of the disorder parameter, in the zero-concentration limit. Eq.(S18), combined with FIG. 11 , show that for strong disorder,ln(μ_(MMA)) varies to a good approximation linearly with to[σ/(k_(B)T)]², with a slope equal to −¼.

Typically, λ/α for small molecules is assumed to be in the 0.1-0.3range. As we focus in this work on transport due to NN-hops, themobility enhancement factor f_(BNN) does not enter our final expressionfor γ, Eq. (S11). Extending the model to include this effect would alsorequire providing an analogous analysis of the mobility enhancement as afunction of λ/α from full 3D-ME or KMC simulations of the mobility.

C. Numerical Evaluation of γ

We see from Eq. (S11) that γ is a complex function of the carrierconcentration and the disorder parameter. In this section, we provide anumerical evaluation of this dependence. The analysis suggests thatwithin a fairly wide range of parameter values, γ can be written in theform

$\begin{matrix}{{\gamma \cong {A\frac{e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{\exp\left( {{- B}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right)}}},} & \left( {S19} \right)\end{matrix}$where A and B are independent of c and {circumflex over (σ)}. Thefinding that γ can be approximated as a constant significantly reducesthe computational complexity of 3D-ME modeling. Giving a full numericalevaluation of γ, for all possible situations, is in practice unfeasible,because r_(μ) and r_(v) depend on the electron as well as the holeconcentrations. For simplicity, we only show here the results ofnumerical evaluations for the case of c^(h)=c^(e). In the next section,we show by direct comparisons of results from ME and KMC simulationsthat the conclusions from this section are also well-applicable when theelectron and hole concentrations are different.

In FIG. 12 parts (a)-(d), r_(μ), and r_(v), f_(EGDM), and f_(MMA),respectively, are given as a function of {circumflex over (σ)}=σ/k_(B)T.For evaluating r_(u), we run KMC simulations for periodic boundaryboxes. A relatively low electric field, F=10⁷ V/m, is applied. Forunipolar cases, the mobility μ_(uni) is calculated by filling the boxwith the desired concentration of a single type of charge carrier. Forbipolar cases, the mobility μ_(bi) is calculated by filling the box atrandom sites by the desired concentration of both types of chargecarriers. The 3D Coulomb interaction between all charge carriers isexplicitly considered. Subsequently, we evaluate r_(u)≡μ_(bi)/μ_(uni).The function r_(v)(c, {circumflex over (σ)}), defined in Eq. (S7), isevaluated using 3D-ME simulations for a box with periodic boundaryconditions, randomly filled with non-interacting electrons and holes(each according to a Fermi-Dirac distribution corresponding to thecarrier concentration of interest). The functions f_(EGDM) and f_(MMA)are calculated from Eqs (S9) and (S18), respectively. The overall effectof these factors on the parameter A_(th)≡r_(μ)r_(v)f_(EGDM)/(6βf_(MMA))is shown in FIG. 12 part (e). It is seen that for 3≤{circumflex over(σ)}≤5 and c<10⁻³, A_(th) depends only weakly on {circumflex over (σ)}and c.

We have extensively studied whether it would be admitted to use a singlevalue of the A parameter for a large number of devices and experimentalconditions of practical relevance, and we have found that that is to agood approximation indeed possible when using A≅(0.024±0.005), whencombined with B≈−0.154. Therefore, in the main text, we use thefollowing simplified form of the γ formula in the 3D-ME simulations:

$\begin{matrix}{\gamma = {\left( {0.024 \pm 0.005} \right)\frac{e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{{\exp\left( {{- 0.154}{\hat{\sigma}}^{2}} \right)}.}}} & \left( {S20} \right)\end{matrix}$

The invention claimed is:
 1. A computer implemented method of simulatingoperation of a semiconductor, the method comprising: (a) receiving aninput specification of composition and geometry of the semiconductor;(b) performing a master equation simulation of and/or chargerecombination based on the input specification; (c) wherein chargetransport is modeled as transport of charged species between stateswithin the semiconductor; (d) wherein recombination is modeled as anon-local process where a charge at a first location and a charge at asecond location can recombine; (e) wherein a rate of the recombinationis modeled as a product of a prefactor γ, hopping rates and stateoccupancies; (f) wherein the prefactor γ is calculated using parametersof the semiconductor including one or more of the following: atemperature, a relative dielectric permittivity, and a disorder energy;and (g) providing simulated transport results of the semiconductor as anoutput.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the master equation simulationis performed for one or more applied voltages less than or equal to abuilt-in voltage of the semiconductor.
 3. The method of claim 1, whereinthe semiconductor is an organic semiconductor.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein the semiconductor is configured as a device is selected from thegroup consisting of: light emitting diodes, solar cells, photodetectors,photovoltaic energy conversion devices, and light emitting field effecttransistors.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein a geometry of the inputspecification is selected from the group consisting of: single layerstructures, two layer structures, three layer structures, multi-layerstructures, 1D device geometries, 2D device geometries, and 3D devicegeometries.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein composition parameters ofthe input specification are selected from the group consisting of: meanenergy of a density of states and energy width of a density of states.7. The method of claim 1, wherein the simulated transport results areselected from the group consisting of: current density,position-dependent current density, electron concentration, holeconcentration, current-voltage relations, position-dependentrecombination rate, light emission(voltage) relations, voltage(lightabsorption) relations, light emission(current density) relations andcurrent density(light absorption) relations.
 8. The method of claim 1,wherein the input specification is a multi-layer structure, wherein thesemiconductor is an organic light emitting diode, wherein a first layeris a metal cathode, wherein a second layer is an organic semiconductorelectron transport layer (ETL), wherein a third layer is an organicsemiconductor emissive layer (EML), wherein a fourth layer is an organicsemiconductor hole transport layer (HTL), wherein a fifth layer is anindium tin oxide layer and wherein a sixth layer is a glass substrate.9. The method of claim 8, further comprising automatic optimization ofat least thicknesses of the ETL, EML and HTL to maximize light output.10. A method of automatic and systematic design of a semiconductor, themethod comprising: (a) receiving a partial input specification ofcomposition and geometry of the semiconductor; (b) defining a simulationspace of device parameters and corresponding parameter ranges of thesemiconductor; (c) automatically performing the method of claim 1 fortwo or more different cases, wherein the input specification isdetermined for each case by selecting values for each of the deviceparameters within the corresponding parameter ranges; and (d) providingan optimized device configuration as an output.
 11. The method of claim1, wherein the charged species are electrons and holes.
 12. The methodof claim 1, wherein the master equation simulation is a 3D masterequation simulation.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein thesemiconductor is a disordered semiconductor and wherein the chargetransport is modeled as incoherent hopping between localized molecularstates.
 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the first location and thesecond location are nearest neighbors in a set of the localizedmolecular states.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the prefactor γ isgiven by an empirically derived analytic expression.
 16. The method ofclaim 15, wherein e is electron charge, wherein ε₀ is the dielectricpermittivity of free space, wherein ε_(r) is the relative dielectricpermittivity of the organic semiconductor, wherein a is a latticeconstant of the semiconductor, wherein k_(B) is Boltzmann's constant,wherein T is temperature, and wherein σ is an energy width of a Gaussiandensity of states of the semiconductor; and wherein the empiricallyderived analytic expression is given by$\gamma \cong {A\frac{e^{2}}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}{ak}_{B}T}{\exp\left\lbrack {- {B\left( \frac{\sigma}{k_{B}T} \right)}^{2}} \right\rbrack}}$wherein coefficient A and coefficient B are independent of a chargecarrier concentration c and independent of σ/k_(B)T.
 17. The method ofclaim 16, wherein the coefficient A is in a range from about 0.019 toabout 0.029 and the coefficient B is about 0.154.
 18. The method ofclaim 17, wherein the coefficient A is 0.024.